ShareThis Page

An expectation of transparency

| Monday, Oct. 2, 2017, 4:00 p.m.
A leaf of marijuana (AP Photo)
A leaf of marijuana (AP Photo)

Despite a state Office of Open Records ruling in August, the Pennsylvania Department of Health is appealing an order to divulge the identities of panelists who evaluated hundreds of applications for state medical marijuana permits. Doing so supposedly would put these state employees at risk for harassment, we're told. And besides, “best practices” from other states support secrecy, according to the department. Since when is public transparency not a “best practice” in a matter that directly involves public resources? We're talking about a panel whose members waded through 280 applications for dispensary permits and 177 applications for grower/processor permits, ultimately selecting 27 dispensaries and 12 growers. The applicants paid thousands of dollars in nonrefundable application fees plus permit fees. The public deserves to know that all marijuana-permit decisions were made free of any potential conflicts. Transparency should have been the expectation, and not the exception, before the panelists were selected.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.